The letter YOU sent to parliament objecting to gay marriage. O…M…G…

Another blog By Neil Hart on gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia

My very pregnant daughter and her husband are doing the home birth thing again. All power to ’em, i say. She just put an empty coles 2 ltr plastic icecream container next to me on the kitchen sink. “Could you wash that” she said. “its my placenta bucket”



I think they plant it under a tree or something but..some things id just rather not know about. OK…OK…turns out im a slightly squeemish, rather- stick- my- head- in– the sand, old fart when it comes to reproductive….stuff…but im perpetually surrounded by pregnant women, midwives and old mother hens… and then my daughter plonks her coles , 2 ltrs plastic placenta bucket  next to me for rinsing out…

maybe somethings should just be left to the women….

I finally got a copy of the letter that was sent to the members of parliament on behalf of all the lutherans (and all the christians!) in australia. Over 50 signatures from church leaders and only one woman,,,The venerable Narelle Jarette archdeacon Anglican diocese of Sydney. its a shame really coz the letter seems to be all about sex and reproductive stuff. and women have always known better than men about thatr…stuff and…those…you know….bits. good on ya Narelle! Keep the bastard s honest yeh?)

anyway, I was hoping to find some ridiculous statements and logical inconsistancies, in the letter. You know,  things i could climb onto my high horse and rant about…

I wasnt disappointed.

I was shocked.

You can read them all yourself here..

just go to the bottom of the list and look for the “revising marriage?” documents.

bottom line? homosexual marriage is not valid because homosexual sex cannot produce children. and, sadly, that is NOT an unfair simplification of their argument. It IS their argument.

the letter to parliament, both the longer and shorter forms, contains this sentence. (they even put it in bold print to show how important it is)…

In redefining marriage, (changing the marriage act to allow for same sex unions) the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. 

Did your WTF sensor go off anywhere there? (that does mean “Why The Fuss doesnt it? ) My sensor went off at “complementary bodily union or children” To understand that little mouthful, you have to go to the background breifing letter that was sent to pastors. (Thats the first “revising marriage?” document for those who want the primary source)

3.2 By describing marriage as a comprehensive union of spouses, we mean … the bodily union of a man and a woman whereby the two become “one flesh”. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must, among other things, unite organically – that is, in the bodily dimension of their being through sexual intercourse.

ok…with you so far….so what is the type of sexual intercourse that is “proper to marriage”? What is a “one flesh” kind of sex?

3.3 … In sexual intercourse, but not in any other form of sexual contact, a man’s and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction…. Their bodies become one by coordinating for the biological good of the whole, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they are giving unique expression to their love for each other.

Yup! there it is. “proper marital sex” is that which has the capacity to produce a pregnancy. and proper marital sex cannot be expressed “in any other form of sexual contact”


Cmon Neil. you must have misquoted…used their stuff out of context. SOMETHING!

sadly, No. The diatribe continues…

3.4 This way of viewing marriage has become less persuasive only because widespread contraception has masked the link between marital sexual activity and the rearing of children. That in turn conveys the impression that all modes of sexual expression seem equivalent. But marriage remains deeply and uniquely oriented to bearing and rearing children. By contrast, two men or two women cannot achieve the same kind of union, since

there is no child-oriented outcome or function toward which their bodies may coordinate. Same sex partnerships lack essential and natural orientation to children: they cannot be sealed by the generative act.

Note the crack about “widespread contraception masking the link between marital sexual activity and the rearing of children” Not only do the letter signers want to determine the appropriate marital sex that you should be having,  they want to stick there noses into your methods of birth control as well!

Where have i heard all this before??? certainly not in any Lutheran teaching or doctrine that i have read. Oh yeh, of course, its standard Roman Catholic dogma. I really dont like divisive language when it comes to different denominations of the church. and i hope that my ministry was marked by language that attempted to increase understanding rather than add to division. But this is one of those major points of difference bewtween Protestants and Roman Cathilics. and it is one aspect of the catholic church’s teaching that i find particularly objectionable.

Sex is for having children, birth control prevents this therefore birth control is wrong.

Ok, that a gross oversimplification but…it kind of isnt…its why aid agencies in developing countries are frustrated at catholic dogma that works against women’s health and opportunities for improving women’s education. Its why those who are fighting the AIDS epidemic in africa are frustrated that the Catholic church refuses to endorse the ABC priciple.. (Abstinence. Be faithful, Condoms)  They are ok with the first two but wont endorse the program because it advocates the use of condoms.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini is one of the names listed as an author of our letter to parliament. He is a roman catholic ethicist. His are the contact details that are provide at the bottom of the report for any pastors who may have further questions. I suspect that it is his wording and his theology that graces the report.  Nicholas had this to say in an article he wrote concerning the use of the pill.

There is a need for clear teaching on contraceptive-abortifacients and the deceit involved, not only in order to address the matter of respect for human life, but also the matter of the rights of women to know what they are doing to their own bodies and to the lives for whom their bodies are rendered hostile. (Linacre Quarterly , February 1995)

Yup. standard Roman Catholic dogma and, as usual, coached in terms that women find so objectionable.

This letter to parliament has made strange bedfellows indeed.

(haha Bedfellows…get it???  gay stuff?? bedfellows???… oh…yeh…sorry narelle…)

Not only has this letter united christian churches who have previously damned each other in their disagreements….it has also bridged the huge divide that separated Protestants and Catholics on sexuality and reproduction.

President Mike? District President Greg? all the other LCA leaders? is that where you are leading us?

sorry all for ecumenism but…i aint settin foot on THAT bridge.

the logic behind the letter is simple, impecable and increadibly disturbing. The only “proper” married sex is sex that leads to reproduction. Gay sex is non reproductive. therefore. gays cant get married.

But… man! that opens up a can of worms that i really need to explore next time. coz im trying to keep theses short (er). stay tuned for part 2.

The worst Monty Python film ever was The Meaning Of Life. it contained one scene that many people found particularly disturbing. I include it here coz…well…it fits.

Its M rated. dont watch if your easily offended…